Well, I had a relatively thorough read of the screenplay, and these are my thoughts.
Reading it as an experience of a mental illness, it could be considered a decent depiction, if you are documenting the 'classic' MPD/DID model, and attempting to convey the classic MPD to classic functionality, ie. multiple girl goes from disfunctionality as a group (and they are dysfunctional, even if they are superficially ‘succeeding’.) to a hetro-normative state of functionality. The implication is that the group has intergrated, the sort of 'guardian angel' effect, where they are beneficently watching over Heather while she is married to the boy of her dreams. And to be frank, that is incredibly unrealistic, and probably where the criticism is (partly) coming from. Part of the problem is, of course, is that the classic models, both of depicting multiplicity and depicting recovery, functionality etc, are not helpful for multiples, as a rule. There are people who have experiences along the lines of Heather, but I would ask, why must THAT particular experience be the one written about and shown to a (largely non-multiple) audience?
Part of my initial reaction was to the word 'alters'. Alter as in alter-ego, as in a 'mask' or a 'face', which most plural groups find offensive (us included, to be honest. Calling Tahl my alter ego is...lol. Try calling your lover, your sibling an ‘alter’ to their face, and see how uncomfortable the word is). This perception is backed up by the characters themselves: Zoe, the vivacious one, Heather, the sensative, quiet core, B.J, the innocent...it all sort of contributes to a feeling of them as facades. Also, all the old stereotypes are there. The protector, the child (who is bluntly indicated to be a trauma split, 'to preserve Heather's innocence’), the 'core' who is somehow deprived because of the others, etc. Also, all of the members in the group are female, which is extremely rare, and adds to the feeling of inauthenticity.
So you have several of the biggest stereotypes there: all same sex, the childhood abuse, the 'roles' of the others around a damaged 'core', the notion of splintering etc. Again, I would say that yes, this does and can happen. BUT, is this the story that should be told? I think personally that a writer has responsibility for WHAT stories are told, because those stories affect the popular perception of the subject. Heather's (and it is Heather's situation, in this screenplay, not Heather and her group, or the System' situation) is repeated over and over again in fiction, when it isn't the reality for many multi groups (from my experience, at least). Just as the immature gay couple battling valiantly against society, contracting AIDs/getting beaten to death by skinheads and then having one or both of them die, forever to pine for their lost love sometimes CAN happen, it is not the story that can speak for the vast majority of the queer community. How can that saccharine 'romance' benefit the older lesbian couple campaigning for the right to marry and have a child under law, or the gay teenager, stranded in the country, without family support, who still has to do with his hormones? What kind of culture are these texts promoting?
This is what I feel you should be asking with Heather, and 'Alters' in general. What, and who's, story are you telling? And is that story the one that needs to be told? Is it ethical to continue promoting these notions of what multiplicity is, while bending a plural character to the normative standard of 'boy meets girl, boy and girl get married, they live happily ever after (with or without 'alters'). You have said yourself, this text is fundamentally a romance. Well, romance as a genre is problematic in and of itself. When you try and bend minorities to fit the romantic scaffold, you usually end up with a patronising element. That is what I think has happened in this story. And that patronising problem > drama > cookie-cutter solution is what gets everyone here up in arms.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 06:42 am (UTC)Reading it as an experience of a mental illness, it could be considered a decent depiction, if you are documenting the 'classic' MPD/DID model, and attempting to convey the classic MPD to classic functionality, ie. multiple girl goes from disfunctionality as a group (and they are dysfunctional, even if they are superficially ‘succeeding’.) to a hetro-normative state of functionality. The implication is that the group has intergrated, the sort of 'guardian angel' effect, where they are beneficently watching over Heather while she is married to the boy of her dreams. And to be frank, that is incredibly unrealistic, and probably where the criticism is (partly) coming from. Part of the problem is, of course, is that the classic models, both of depicting multiplicity and depicting recovery, functionality etc, are not helpful for multiples, as a rule. There are people who have experiences along the lines of Heather, but I would ask, why must THAT particular experience be the one written about and shown to a (largely non-multiple) audience?
Part of my initial reaction was to the word 'alters'. Alter as in alter-ego, as in a 'mask' or a 'face', which most plural groups find offensive (us included, to be honest. Calling Tahl my alter ego is...lol. Try calling your lover, your sibling an ‘alter’ to their face, and see how uncomfortable the word is). This perception is backed up by the characters themselves: Zoe, the vivacious one, Heather, the sensative, quiet core, B.J, the innocent...it all sort of contributes to a feeling of them as facades. Also, all the old stereotypes are there. The protector, the child (who is bluntly indicated to be a trauma split, 'to preserve Heather's innocence’), the 'core' who is somehow deprived because of the others, etc. Also, all of the members in the group are female, which is extremely rare, and adds to the feeling of inauthenticity.
So you have several of the biggest stereotypes there: all same sex, the childhood abuse, the 'roles' of the others around a damaged 'core', the notion of splintering etc. Again, I would say that yes, this does and can happen. BUT, is this the story that should be told? I think personally that a writer has responsibility for WHAT stories are told, because those stories affect the popular perception of the subject. Heather's (and it is Heather's situation, in this screenplay, not Heather and her group, or the System' situation) is repeated over and over again in fiction, when it isn't the reality for many multi groups (from my experience, at least). Just as the immature gay couple battling valiantly against society, contracting AIDs/getting beaten to death by skinheads and then having one or both of them die, forever to pine for their lost love sometimes CAN happen, it is not the story that can speak for the vast majority of the queer community. How can that saccharine 'romance' benefit the older lesbian couple campaigning for the right to marry and have a child under law, or the gay teenager, stranded in the country, without family support, who still has to do with his hormones? What kind of culture are these texts promoting?
This is what I feel you should be asking with Heather, and 'Alters' in general. What, and who's, story are you telling? And is that story the one that needs to be told? Is it ethical to continue promoting these notions of what multiplicity is, while bending a plural character to the normative standard of 'boy meets girl, boy and girl get married, they live happily ever after (with or without 'alters'). You have said yourself, this text is fundamentally a romance. Well, romance as a genre is problematic in and of itself. When you try and bend minorities to fit the romantic scaffold, you usually end up with a patronising element. That is what I think has happened in this story. And that patronising problem > drama > cookie-cutter solution is what gets everyone here up in arms.